In Texas, large fields are prepared for the next year’s corn crop. (Photo: Daniel James/flickr/cc)

The strategic centerpiece of Monsanto PR is to focus on the promotion of one single compelling idea. The idea that they want you to believe in is thatonly they can produce enoughfor the future population. They wish you to therefore believe that non-industrial systems of farming, such as all those which use agroecological methods, orSRI, or are localised and family-oriented, or which use organic methods, or non-GMO seeds, cannot feed the world. This same PR strategy is followed by every major commercial participant in the industrial food system.

To be sure, agribusiness has a few other PR strategies. Agribusiness is “pro-science”, its opponents are “anti-science”, and so on. But themain plankhas for decades been to create a cast-iron moral framing around the need to produce more.

Likewise, whenever these same organisations compose speeches or press releases, or videos, they devote precious space to the same urgent problem. It is even in theirjob advertisements. It is their Golden Fact. And as far as neutrals are concerned it wins the food system debate hands down, because it says, if any other farming system cannot feed the world, it is irrelevant. Only agribusiness can do that.

The real food crisis is of overproduction

Yet this strategy has a disastrous weakness. There is no global or regional shortage of food. There never has been and nor is there ever likely to be.Indiahas asuperabundanceof food. South America is swamped in food. The US, Australia, New Zealand andEuropeareswampedin food. In Britain, like in many wealthy countries, nearly half of all row crop food productionnow goes to biofuels, which at bottom are an attempt to dispose of surplus agricultural products. China isn’t quite swamped but it still exports food (see Fig 1.);anditgrows 30%of the world’s cotton. No foodpocalypse there either.

Even in Bangladesh the farmers do not produce the rice they could because prices are low, because of persistent gluts.

Even some establishment institutions will occasionally admit that the food shortage concept – now and in any reasonably conceivable future – is bankrupt. According to experts consulted by the World Bank Institute there is already sufficient food production for14 billion people– more food than will ever be needed. The Golden Fact of agribusiness is therefore a lie.

Truth restoration

So, if the agribusiness PR experts are correct that food crisis fears are pivotal to their industry, then it follows that those who oppose the industrialization of food and agriculture should make dismantling that lie their number one priority.

Anyone who wants a sustainable, pesticide-free, or non-GMO food future, or wants to avoid climate chaos, needs to know this weakness. They should take every possible opportunity to point out the evidence that refutes it.Granaries are bulging, crops are beingburned as biofuelsor dumped, prices are low, farmers are abandoning farming for slums and cities, all because of massive oversupply.

The project to fully industrialise global food production is far from complete, yet already it is responsible for most deforestation, most marine pollution, most coral reef destruction, much of greenhouse gas emissions,most habitat loss,most of the degradation of streams and rivers, most food insecurity, most immigration, most water depletion, massive human health problems, and so on. Our planet is becomingliterally uninhabitablesolely as a result of the social and ecological consequences of industrialising agriculture. All these problems are without even mentioning thetrillions of dollarsin annualexternalised costsand subsidies.

So, if one were to devise a strategy for the food movement, it would be this. The public already knows (mostly) that pesticides are dangerous. They also know that organic food is higher quality, and is far more environmentally friendly. It knows that GMOs should be labeled,are largely untested, and may be harmful. That is why the leaders of most major countries,including China, dine on organic food. The immense scale of the problems created by industrial agriculture should, of course, be understood better, but the main facts are hardly in dispute.

But what industry understands, and the food movement does not, is that what prevents total rejection of bland, industrialised,pesticide-laden, GMO food is the standard acceptance, especially in Western countries, of the overarching agribusiness argument that such food isnecessary. It is necessary to feed the world.

So, if the food movement could show that famine is an empty threat then it would also have shown, by clear implication, that the chemical health risks and the ecological devastation that these technologies represent are what is unnecessary. The movement would have shown that pesticides and GMOs exist solely to extract profit from the food chain.They have no other purpose. Therefore, every project of the food movement should aim to spread the truth of oversupply, until mention of the Golden Fact invites ridicule and embarrassment in the population, rather than fear.

Divide and Confuse

Food campaigners might also consider that a strategy to combat the food scarcity myth can unite a potent mix of causes. Just as an understanding of food abundance destroys the argument for pesticide use and GMOs simultaneously, it also creates the potential for common ground within and between constituencies that do not currently associate much: health advocates, food system workers, climate campaigners, wildlife conservationists and international development campaigners. None of these constituencies inherently like chemical poisons, and they are hardly natural allies of agribusiness, but the pressure of the food crisis lie has driven many of them to ignore what could be the best solution to their mutual problems: small scale farming and pesticide-free agriculture. This is exactly what the companies intended.

So divisive has the Golden Fact been that some non-profits have entered into perversepartnerships with agribusinessand others supportinadequate or positively fraudulent sustainability labels. Another consequence has been mass confusion over the observation that almost all the threats to the food supply (salinisation, water depletion, soil erosion, climate change and chemical pollution) come from the supposed solution–the industrialisation of food production. These contradictions are not real. When the smoke is blown away and the mirrors are taken down the choices within the food system become crystal clear. They fall broadly into two camps.

On the one side lie family farms and ecological methods. These support farmer and consumer health, resilience,financial and democratic independence, community, cultural and biological diversity, and long term sustainability. Opposing them is control of the food system by corporate agribusiness. Agribusiness domination leads invariantly todependence, uniformity, poisoning and ecological degradation, inequality, land grabbing, and, not so far off, to climate chaos.

One is a vision, the other is a nightmare: inevery single casewhere industrial agriculture is implemented it leaves landscapes progressively emptier of life. Eventually, because it vaporizes the carbon, the soil turns eitherinto mudthat washes into the rivers orinto dustthat blows away on the wind. Industrial agriculture hasno long term future; it is ecological suicide. But for obvious reasons those who profit from it cannot allow all this to become broadly understood. That is why the food scarcity lie is so fundamental to them. They absolutely depend on it, since it alone can camouflage the underlying issues.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Jonathan R. Latham, PhD is co-founder and executive director of theBioscience Resource Project. He has published scientific papers in disciplines as diverse as plant ecology, virology, and genetics.

Subscribe

3 Reader Comments

The movie, “GMO OMG” has a powerful scene in which a representative of Rodale Institute, an organization that has worked with organics and GMO seeds for 3decades conveyed to the director that while GMO seeds outperformed the organic seed yields for the first couple years, organics caught up with and surpassed the yields of GMO seeds. He also stated that organics could Seifert’s scientific research comes from the Rodale Institute, which showed that side by side, over 30 years, organic farming outperforms industrial GMO farming. could double food production in the world within 10 years. By restating this fact that was reportedly contained in a UN Report goes a long way to establish, once and for all, that we do not need GMO seeds.

There is no food shortage, but there is an unfair distribution of food, the west takes a disproportionately large amount of it (most of which is wasted or has to be processed in such a way so’s it keeps longer); farmers in third world & developing countries are forced out of business due to cheap imports & low import taxes (which have to be kept low or the IMF + World Bank will take away the financial help); under WTO rules countries (eg) that grow cocoa are not allowed to set up they’re own factories to make chocolate products to sell to the rest of the world, which I think is really illogical as cocoa growing countries would make damn sit more money if they were able to do that than they make now. I could rant on in this fashion for hours, but time isn’t on my side. I’m sure someone out there could delve into these rather evil entities (WTO, IMF, World Bank) as to how they keep poor countries poor & rich countries rich ——

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the articles on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use'...you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. And, if you are a copyright owner who wishes to have your content removed, let us know via the "Contact Us" link at the top of the site, and we will promptly remove it.

The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Conscious Life News assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms.

Paid advertising on Conscious Life News may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied.